Function and Form . Do we need to take 2 approaches when seeking a Whole view.?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Could it be , that by limiting ourselves to Only a mechanical understanding of the Universe, we are only getting One , incomplete , facet of nature ?

 

Could it be that a complete understanding is ' ONLY ' possible with an incredible interwoven understanding developed incorporating BOTH .

 

FUNCTION ( Engineering Science ) And FORM ( Visual, Beauty , and Feeling ) ?

 

After all , we as observers of the universe , have two halves to our brain :-

 

( one half very functional - Left hand Brain The other half very creative, visual, etc - Right hand Brain.)

 

 

 

Mike

Edited December 20, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

You do know the whole left brain - right brain thing is a complete myth made up new-age cranks?

But apart from that, most mathematicians and physicists (and ver possibly other scientists) seem to have a very keenly evolved aesthetic sense. You will often see mathematical theorems, scientific theories or experiments described as "elegant" or "beautiful".

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You do know the whole left brain - right brain thing is a complete myth made up new-age cranks?

But apart from that, most mathematicians and physicists (and ver possibly other scientists) seem to have a very keenly evolved aesthetic sense. You will often see mathematical theorems, scientific theories or experiments described as "elegant" or "beautiful".

Yes I have heard it expressed by mathematicians occasionally, when they have a choice which way to go . They intuitively will go the beautiful route . ( say , in a difficult proof ) .

 

However I feel that the considerations of ' form' are considered a secondary consideration , and

not particularly a directive , in the first place .

 

Modern design around ' tablets ' and their associated software . We are a long way down the growth of computer hardware and software . From whirling decatrons , rooms full of mainframes, pc's , I pads etc . But I am sure they have been taken kicking and screaming to this current state . Yet information manipulation , still carries the ' style ' of the electronics and software designers. If the start had been driven by ' Form ' we might have grown through a totally different design route . We as users like seeing images and hearing words . Really we are barely , only just now ' seeing and hearing people' ( conferencing ' ) perhaps we should have started with that . Rather than awkward keypads and menu driven software.

 

A host of other examples where :-

 

Function , as ' technical science/ engineering ' has been the main initial driver.

'

' Form, is only coming along now to tidy up , or developing its rightful place as the other main driver.

 

As 'function ' has a plethora of considerations, namely modules of mechanical design , electronic aspects, optical features software considerations and a host of other sciences.

 

I am suggesting ' form ' has not had any where near the application diversity , across a wide spectrum of different ' aspects ' of form .

 

You have only to look about , to say why has the natural environment , got LEGS , running about , muscles supplying thrust, linear drivers. Whereas the pure functional route taken by an extraordinary development of locomotion , has taken rotation as a driving mechanism ( motors , engines , etc ) and wheels as rotational tools.

 

Maybe the development of function and form concurrently , in the motor and automotive industry , would have brought us to a different end . ?...

 

In fact the whole direction of research might take us to new unforeseen regions if this ' Second Attribute ' of ' Form ' and all the extensive features that these alternative ( Drivers ) could bring to investigation of the Universe.

 

Mike

Edited December 20, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Mike, you've posted this in the science section, and yet I see nothing even remotely scientific offered. Indeed, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at here. Please clarify this in your next post, or I will be closing the thread.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.a debate about the possible conflict of ' function and form ' has been around before I was born .

 

Link :-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function#Debate_on_the_functionality_of_ornamentation.

 

Whether one should follow the other .

 

I am mearly asking whether we may not gain by using both at the same time , as a means to get a better insight ?

 

(A)

Instead of choosing ' function' , as the beginning and end of everything . Namely , the engineering , scientific, mathematical, physics, being the only requirement for a design of a product or an explanation of operation or idea.

 

(B)

Or for that matter ' form ' as being the only requirement , namely it does not matter how it works , as long as it looks and feels good , being the only consideration .

 

That a simultaneous view of nature, the universe, research , design , understanding , would give us an advantage, if they ( function and form ) were used in that way at the same time ( concurrently ) . Instead of sequentially ( one following the other ) .? And with equal priority!

 

These are the questions, up for consideration here .?

 

It has to be said ( I shall probably be shot down ) that men often consider ' function ' first . And that women often consider ' form ' first . Yet both are required to make the world go around .

 

So if that is the case . Would our progress in understanding of a subject not be improved if as a ' matter of course ' we approached a project in this way ? Concurrent observing , concurrent thinking , concurrent reasoning , concurrent debate, concurrent research ?

 

This might feel a bit odd to begin with ! If a scientist or engineer is constantly questioning his/her every thought or action with ( does this feel right, does this look right, does this intuitively give me a warm state of being, etc . A whole set of questions and emotions that a scientist would perhaps feel is ' nothing whatsoever to do with it ' ) ?

 

This is the question , I am brokering ? Or getting at ? A very good question , I hasten to add ! ?

 

Surely , this is why we have 2 ears, 2 eyes, 2 hands, 2 opposing digits to our hand ( finger and thumb ) ,

2 halves to our brain, ? 2 opposites everywhere, everything . Is it not ?

2 is a good number , 3 is even better ! ..............Happy Christmas .........

 

 

Further links to ' Form '

Theory of Form :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

 

Form :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form

 

Mike

Edited December 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.a debate about the possible conflict of ' function and form ' has been around before I was born .

 

Link :-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function#Debate_on_the_functionality_of_ornamentation.

 

Whether one should follow the other .

 

 

That the argument has been around for a long time does not make it one of science, and it seems to me that this echoes a previous thread (which was about science) the one where you asked whether math alone should lead scientific discovery. The common theme here is one of a massive straw man. You are simply ignoring the fact that there are endeavors where both form and function are considered.

 

If you want to talk about why function is often considered first, it's probably because something that doesn't work is usually not very useful. And especially considering limited resources, making sure something will work is often the primary consideration, so that efforts to make it look nice aren't wasted. Also, there are people who will pay for something that works at some minimum level, and do not find value is making it look particularly nice if that drives up the price.

 

Short version: would you buy a nice-looking car that did not (and could not) get you from point A to point B?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That the argument has been around for a long time does not make it one of science, and it seems to me that this echoes a previous thread (which was about science) the one where you asked whether math alone should lead scientific discovery. The common theme here is one of a massive straw man. You are simply ignoring the fact that there are endeavors where both form and function are considered.

 

If you want to talk about why function is often considered first, it's probably because something that doesn't work is usually not very useful. And especially considering limited resources, making sure something will work is often the primary consideration, so that efforts to make it look nice aren't wasted. Also, there are people who will pay for something that works at some minimum level, and do not find value is making it look particularly nice if that drives up the price.

 

Short version: would you buy a nice-looking car that did not (and could not) get you from point A to point B?

 

I am ' particularly ' , suggesting , that there may be merit , in a duality of consideration of both features simultaneously . In the Wikipedia references I refer to, such historic notables ,such as Plato, who considered shape or form as being essential to understanding of nature. In engineering and manufacture, to leave physical design ( form) to the later stages , means there could be possibly serious difficulties arising unnecessarily , due to dictating physical structures being included ( just because the function was considered first ) ( maybe that is why our transport systems , Road, Rail, Air , and Sea All have a fairly grim record of maiming and fatalities . Aesthetics were unlikely to have been considered when the early designs were laid down . Now the systems are so entrenched its difficult to redesign .

 

Also, in undertaking fundamental research , such as seeking a unification of all forces including gravity. Some scientists are trying to use Maths as a unifying tool. In view of what I am discussing in this thread, there would ' possibly ' be good merit to consider ' Form ' . What if the key to unification lay much more in 'Form' of a certain type say super symmetry or some other beautiful, unimaginable , beyond belief , contortion of form , and the function lagged by a factor of 10 to the (say) minus 155 or something . Making understanding beyond reach without considering ' form' first. Obviously , the previous sentence, is just an illustration,( plucked out of thin air ) , purely to highlight the folly of excluding ' Form ' at the start of the universe. I have a wishful hunch , Plato might relate to this reasoning .

 

Mike

Edited December 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Also, in undertaking fundamental research , such as seeking a unification of all forces including gravity. Some scientists are trying to use Maths as a unifying tool. In view of what I am discussing in this thread, there would ' possibly ' be good merit to consider ' Form ' .

 

What does "form" mean in this context? Your idea just seems a little too vague at the moment.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What does "form" mean in this context? Your idea just seems a little too vague at the moment.

That is an excellent question . What indeed does ' Form ' constitute , in this context? I need to give that question a great deal of thought.

 

How would I .... visually wise, aesthetic wise , shape wise , feeling wise , emotion wise, sensation wise , ... Da Di da .. ........ and a long list of ' Form wise ' on a par with all the various disciplines and characteristics of the scientific 'Function ' sphere. It probably has softer edges than the sharp rigour of Functional science. Maybe ' vagueness ' itself is one of the characteristics .

 

See following picture , I have just done , which quite a few people like . It is the vague edges , blended . The clouds, the vague hint of yachts, etc. The absence of detail , the ambiguity , that appeal. That's why ' abstract , impressionist , paintings ' have an appeal .

 

 

 

Vague yet ' form '. Shot of the waves and sea .

 

 

Useful link re discussion on any possible linkage ( function and form )

 

:- http://www.thebrandwash.com/2013/03/21/form-follows-function-a-truism-that-isnt-true/

 

Mike

Edited December 22, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Architecture seems to be a real example where :- FORM has taken the lead . The great buildings before and since the Renascence, have and do illustrate where aesthetics has been the main consideration in a buildings appearance. The FUNCTION has almost had to accommodate the demands of FORM .

 

LINK :- http://www.thebrandwash.com/2013/03/21/form-follows-function-a-truism-that-isnt-true/

 

Architectural history is resplendent with examples of form forcing function.

 

 

Saint Peters Basilica . Function: To be sublime!

 

If we translate this across to the structure of the Universe , showing its ". Form ". we can see a similar tale unfolding .

 

Some of the pictures of the universe give images which would make any artist quiver in awe.

 

 

 

Form in all its glory

 

Function ? Well that's another interesting story ?

 

Mike

Edited December 22, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I suppose some areas of science do start from form. For example, why do spiral galaxies have the shape they do. After all there is no real 'function' to that shape, but it emerges from the dynamics of the system.

[DrP]

QUOTE: "FUNCTION (Engineering Science), FORM (Visual, Beauty, Feeling)"

 

Visuals, Beauty and Feelings can all be explained by science - they are not 'apart' from science - nothing is - if it turns out that some psykik weirdness turns out to be true (not that any of it has to date) then it becomes science, not myth.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Mike

 

This thread must take a scientific turn with your next post or it gets locked with no chance of you reopening the topic.

 

You have been given numerous warnings and moderations notes and should, by now, know what we mean by stating that this is not at the present science. The topic MUST involved objectively agreed definitions, SHOULD lead to a possibility of a logically constructed argument from the known to the unknown with evidence (or the possibility of same) that is acceptable to the community, DOESN'T need bandwidth hogging copies of your snaps and paintings, and MUST NOT be based on your incredulity or failure to understand the topic.

 

This is the public science forum - not your blog; if you wish to simple write your opinions with the possibility of comments then use a blog. This forum is for SCIENTIFIC debate. I cannot be more clear - failure to put this thread on a sound footing will result in it being locked.

 

[studiot]

I have a feeling that Mike is putting forward the Fresnel Principle

 

Natura simplex et fecunda

 

http://www.if.pwr.wroc.pl/~optappl/article.php?lp=637

 

To which I would offer G N Whitehead's reply

 

Seek simplicity and distrust it.

 

 

I must congratulate Mike for inventing a new method of proof.

 

Proof by overwhelming numbers of pictures.

 

How I wish that many posters of questions here would deign to draw only one.

 

My favourite phrase seems to be

 

Draw a diagram.

 

[swansont]

I am ' particularly ' , suggesting , that there may be merit , in a duality of consideration of both features simultaneously . In the Wikipedia references I refer to, such historic notables ,such as Plato, who considered shape or form as being essential to understanding of nature. In engineering and manufacture, to leave physical design ( form) to the later stages , means there could be possibly serious difficulties arising unnecessarily , due to dictating physical structures being included ( just because the function was considered first ) ( maybe that is why our transport systems , Road, Rail, Air , and Sea All have a fairly grim record of maiming and fatalities . Aesthetics were unlikely to have been considered when the early designs were laid down . Now the systems are so entrenched its difficult to redesign .

 

You present no evidence that this isn't happening, just that it doesn't happen universally. You could discuss why it didn't happen with specific cases. That might be illuminating, but your central thesis is vague and unsupported.

 

Alos, consider that Plato ended up not really solving any science issues.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You present no evidence that this isn't happening, just that it doesn't happen universally. You could discuss why it didn't happen with specific cases. That might be illuminating, but your central thesis is vague and unsupported.

 

Alos, consider that Plato ended up not really solving any science issues.

The death by road tragic accident statistic is 1 in 247 during a lifetime .

 

See following reference :- http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html

 

This is a pretty bad statistic to result from our 20/21 century road travel system .

 

An examination of motor transport :- motor bikes, cars , lorries , busses. Reveals a very strong influence by mechanical engineering , and quarried stone/ tar/ concrete . With very little free space and soft buffer zones .

 

A comparison with natures own solution in animals , reveals :- space , softness, of the moving object and fairly soft surface over which to travel ( except rocks ) . I think a comparison of animals bumping in to one another or falling over and hitting the ground , shows an obvious positive of natures solutions.

 

I would suggest nature science , uses a full spectrum of science ( including the vague , soft bit ) whereas engineering science is ridged and hurts badly if you collide or hit the road surface ( motor bikes ) .

 

So , here I am trying to reason that ridged engineering , has inflexible boundaries , which are hard and dangerous . Whereas the province of animals and grassland have soft and kind boundaries.

 

It is this softness and give , is more of the vagueness of ' form ' .

 

Tonight I was encouraged by my wife to attend at Wells ( South West England a Christmas Carol Service)

 

I noticed the function / form principle at work .

 

Look at this building , it is immense and extreme beyond functional requirement .

 

 

Inside , if you just wanted to house a few hundred people the roof could be say 2-3 meters above their heads . Instead ' Form ' stretched that to 100's of meters above their heads , but what a space .

 

 

So the building sciences of those years ( 100's and 100' s of years ago ) incorporated that 'FORM '

Edited December 23, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[puppypower]

A good example of form and function is found in automobile design. The form of most modern cars is based on doing well in wind tunnel testing for aerodynamics. Everyone is concerned with MPG, therefore form needs to follow this function, with most new cars forms designed to make sure they are aerodynamic; functional. Since all cars are not exactly the same, then form does not exactly meet this function, since form, by itself, will sell cars.

 

If you look at animals in nature, form and function are much more closely related. All the attributes of a lion are highly suited to its functions in Africa. Natural selection chooses genetic parameters optimized to function; bigger teeth and sharper claws. If the climate is always hot, natural selection will choose form that tolerates heat.

 

An interesting example of form and function is homosexuality. This is an example where form and function diverge. The form is defined by genetics; born with certain physical attributes, yet the function is assumed to be the opposite.

 

In marketing, the pet rock had the form of a rock, but is was given the function of a pet. Many people went along with this for reasons that were not rational. As we depart from cause and effect, form and function can diverge. In the case of car designs not being all 100% aerodynamic, form will diverge slightly to take advantage of subjectivity.

Edited December 22, 2015 by puppypower

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes, I think the story of the entry of the first Automotive's , illustrate well the divergence of Form and Function at times.

The very early upright cars , were considered dangerous ,to be travelling on bridle paths and foot paths . A person was required to walk in front of the automotive , waving a warning flag .

 

The consideration of the compassionate , wooly, soft feeling , nature of Form was not continued , and the function took over. Only in recent times have experimenters tried covering themselves with balloon like plastic spheres and dropping from heights, colliding with collapsable cardboard boxes finding that they were quite safe . This was also utilised by some Mars landing , in recent years, with unmanned flights , with delicate apparatus .

 

Air bags in cars are a late entry , into this area of endeavour. Perhaps if we could wind time back and have introduced much more soft edged , wooly , vague , more space , aspects of Form , in Automotive development , we would not have ended up with this dangerous system . 1 in 247 chance of being killed in a lifetime .

 

Mike

 

Another interesting example of the progress of form and function .

 

FORM :- Space, Shape, Colour, Feelings, Wonder and Awe .....etc

Edited December 23, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

The death by road tragic accident statistic is 1 in 247 during a lifetime .

 

See following reference :- http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html

In the US it's even worse: 1 in 80. We drive more.

 

This is a pretty bad statistic to result from our 20/21 century road travel system .

Is it? there is no context to the number. Even in the US, it's down the list of causes of death below cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems and various cancers.

 

An examination of motor transport :- motor bikes, cars , lorries , busses. Reveals a very strong influence by mechanical engineering , and quarried stone/ tar/ concrete . With very little free space and soft buffer zones .

 

A comparison with natures own solution in animals , reveals :- space , softness, of the moving object and fairly soft surface over which to travel ( except rocks ) . I think a comparison of animals bumping in to one another or falling over and hitting the ground , shows an obvious positive of natures solutions.

See the above comment on death statistics. Nature does a worse job of keeping us alive.

 

Did you ever stop to think that the reason for cramped road conditions where you live is that the roads sprang up when transportation was ox and cart, and cities sprang up around them? Gosh, why didn't they consider the future when we'd have automobiles?

 

I would suggest nature science , uses a full spectrum of science ( including the vague , soft bit ) whereas engineering science is ridged and hurts badly if you collide or hit the road surface ( motor bikes ) .

Using a motorcycle is a choice, and cars are currently engineered to be much safer than they were. They are crash-tested, and there are standards they have to meet. But that's all function, so I don't really know what your argument is. Adding soft bits to make cars safer – if that worked – would still be an example of function.

 

So , here I am trying to reason that ridged engineering , has inflexible boundaries , which are hard and dangerous . Whereas the province of animals and grassland have soft and kind boundaries.

 

It is this softness and give , is more of the vagueness of ' form ' .

Still not understanding your point. You need to do a better job of defining "form". I was supposing it meant "make it look aesthetically pleasing", whereas function meant "make it work". But now you're telling me a fat cow or pig is an example of good form, owing to their soft parts. I'm not seeing it.

 

Tonight I was encouraged by my wife to attend at Wells ( South West England a Christmas Carol Service)

 

I noticed the function / form principle at work .

 

Look at this building , it is immense and extreme beyond functional requirement .

 

image.jpg

 

Inside , if you just wanted to house a few hundred people the roof could be say 2-3 meters above their heads . Instead ' Form ' stretched that to 100's of meters above their heads , but what a space .

Yes, it's beautiful. I've been there. It's a cathedral. I think the reason that most buildings aren't cathedral-like is economic. I also don't think that's very hard to figure out. And what of the function. Is a church or cathedral an example of good function? I don't think so. Lots of wasted space and it's empty a lot of the time.

 

You could build a really gorgeous car that had gothic ornaments. But it would probably have lousy gas mileage. Bad function, and would people buy it?

[Ophiolite]

Still not understanding your point. You need to do a better job of defining "form". I was supposing it meant "make it look aesthetically pleasing", whereas function meant "make it work". But now you're telling me a fat cow or pig is an example of good form, owing to their soft parts. I'm not seeing it.

As far as I can tell the principal soft parts reside in Mike's woolly thinking.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I suppose some areas of science do start from form. For example, why do spiral galaxies have the shape they do. After all there is no real 'function' to that shape, but it emerges from the dynamics of the system.

A small interjection .

 

I would like to think that Science can include the entire spectrum . From ridged , precise , Functional phenomenon , right through to the far out reaches of Form, where more of the esoteric phenomenon exist eg ( Shape, Colour, Wonder, Space and Awe . Etc )

 

When I go for a walk in the park , I look around and I think ! There is not a lot , some yes , but not a lot , that I feel immediately suggests and could achieve being a complete detailed scientific description to, including principles, that I could put a mathematical formula toward its function. Maybe some . But then I notice an awful lot that I could put Form to , with a whole range of feelings , emotion, wonder , shape , colour , appreciation, awe.

 

If I was in the middle of a city, I think this would be quite the other way . Interesting !

 

Mike

Edited December 23, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[puppypower]

Form is connected to appearance, while function is connected to utility.

 

The SUV, the sports cars and the pickup truck, each have different functions, with their respective forms, best suited to that function. The cat and dog each survive differently in nature, with the form of the cat and the form of the dog optimizing survival utility.

 

If you place an automobile in a wind tunnel, certain body shapes are better optimized in terms of wind resistance. The wind tunnel and all the censors can help the designers shape the final form so it is optimized by the utility of the wind.

 

However, since all cars do not default to the same basic wind optimized design, this suggests that a secondary function is being added to the form. That secondary function is market appeal. The car has to look appealing, while also reducing wind tunnel function to sell. Sometimes the total utility can be a result of two competing functions, that are average into a single form, not optimize to either.

 

When humans get involved, this equation of form equal function, does not always add up logically. Market appeal is often faddish. The pet rock was a rock that was sales pitched to be a low maintenance pet. From a rational POV of form and function this does not add up. However, it was popular so its unorthodox form appeared to equate function, due to a subjective factor.

 

If you notice I tend to accumulate warning points. This is because I don't always design the form of my writing to meet any preconceived function such as confirming to the status quo. The forum function is defined and if the form of my writing does not match this function, there is a warning or sometimes even worse. But in my mind, form and function match, since I see my function as pointing out new ways to look at things, to open up the mind.

Edited December 23, 2015 by puppypower

[swansont]

I would like to think that science can include the entire spectrum from ridged , precise , functional phenomenon , right through to the far out reaches of form , where the more esoteric phenomenon exist .

Mike

Stil incredibly vague, and still no evidence that this doesn't occur.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Stil incredibly vague, and still no evidence that this doesn't occur.

Well I am perfectly happy that the functional end , has many firm conventional scientific principles, they may not all be exhaustive , but sufficiently rigorous to keep everybody happy.

 

It's as it moves toward the " Form". end of the spectrum . There is no need to drop science itself out of the picture . But it might be necessary to drop the rigour. * as we move in to more shape, feeling , colourful, ephemeral, then Yes the Vague starts to creep in the human emotion starts to engage , the ' give me space' comes up on the priority list . Conventional scientists start getting twitchy . As the " Form " appears ' note only appears to take over from conventional science' . This happened with chaos theory , but then they found , 'attractors ' . Yes the , " vague " is there . There has to be space, there has to be more freedom of movement , there has to be a degree of human feelings and emotions , intuition, wonder and awe, all of which are anathema to strict logicians .

 

Mike

 

* if a piston changed its length by a few fractions of an inch , the engine would fail . functionally .

 

If a flowers yellow petal changed its length by a whole inch , it might even look more beautiful . form

Edited December 23, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Is this another, "I don't understand maths so I wish people would stop using it so much" thread?